People on minimum wage can't buy a house

[Andrew NDB]

What a shocker!

https://money.yahoo.com/renting-unaf...200709826.html

[Original TMNT Cartoon Fan]

Anyone can probably buy a cheap and old remote cottage in the forests, mountains or on an island in a lake or the sea.

[neatoman]

Originally Posted by Original TMNT Cartoon Fan

Anyone can probably buy a cheap and old remote cottage in the forests, mountains or on an island in a lake or the sea.

I'm not sure some shack out in the middle of nowhere is ideal for anyone. At that point it might actually be a better idea to camp in a tent on the outskirts of town.

[CyberCubed]

Originally Posted by Original TMNT Cartoon Fan

Anyone can probably buy a cheap and old remote cottage in the forests, mountains or on an island in a lake or the sea.

Maybe in your country, not in the U.S. unless you want to live among poor white people.

[IMJ]

You could always buy the Hobo Shack in the Woods we were discussing in the other thread! There's always that....

[IMJ]

See.... we used to demand that people better themselves and their situation either through education or through free market ingenuity and opportunities in order to improve their lives.

Now we write liberal articles about "the unfairness" about life-goals, and demand that society passes rules to give people more money for scrub jobs, so as to accommodate people who are in an "unfair minimum wage situation".

And then we post this $#!( for the brain trust of a Ninja Turtles forum to read and comment on so that they can block the "informed" opinions on the forums so as to continue to espouse their own bull $#!( unchallenged, while also complaining about their gout problems, social problems and issues at mid-life either born of age or of inactivity.

Welcome to the world brought you by.... those people.

[IndigoErth]

Originally Posted by Original TMNT Cartoon Fan

Anyone can probably buy a cheap and old remote cottage in the forests, mountains or on an island in a lake or the sea.

Unless someone knows how to be fully self sustaining, that would very well still be out of the budge of most? Because now the jobs are too far away, so say goodbye to the paycheck, and getting food and supplies brought back or shipped there is probably really going to make getting them cost a whole lot more.

Lets face it... if we didn't grow up in some remote cabin, in a family that has for generations, and know how to deal with life in the woods and how to survive winters in total isolation, or on some island that gets hit by a hurricane every year, most of us just wouldn't be able to deal with that lifestyle anyhow.

"And even fairly ambitious targets like $15 are going to fall short in a lot of places."

Yeah, try most, since that's below the actual cost of living for most (all?) states.


The people who lived the early days of minimum had it lucky, I guess, if it really could at least afford a small family the basics in life and on only one income. Maybe no luxuries, but if it could afford them a roof over their head, food, clothing, heat in the winter... Seems fair enough.

Now though, it's not simply that it didn't keep up with inflation, but we've got the piling on of far more bills for things people are expected to have, or just flat out need to thrive in today's world, and they're all so overpriced.


Not much point in an article that's just repeating what everyone already knows but aren't figuring out how to do something about it.


edit: My sister the other day mentioned something she'd heard about some states cutting off telecommuting hiring to only those who live within 100 miles, because with a lot of work going virtual during the pandemic, apparently people in states with lower income were grabbing online jobs with companies in states that pay better, then translating that into a better living standard in their own cheaper town.

I mean... that sounds like a fine idea (and why didn't I think of that lol), but it's also taking away jobs from people in those states who have to live with a higher cost of living.

[Andrew NDB]

But we do know how to do something about it, same as we did decades ago. Get a better job. Learn a trade. Minimum wage isn't supposed to get you the white picket fence and was never supposed to, and never should.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

But we do know how to do something about it, same as we did decades ago. Get a better job. Learn a trade. Minimum wage isn't supposed to get you the white picket fence and was never supposed to, and never should.

FDR would have disagreed with that sentiment. It was supposed to be the minimum LIVABLE wage for supporting a family on, in a decent home.

[IndigoErth]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

But we do know how to do something about it, same as we did decades ago. Get a better job. Learn a trade. Minimum wage isn't supposed to get you the white picket fence and was never supposed to, and never should.

And when schooling costs too much and you have communities like mine where, if you actually look around take note of what's in the area, a majority of the work is retail of some kind... so that's more easily said than done.

Here, your main options other than retail and food industry are the local healthcare system or banks/credit card industry. Woohoo.

Or Amazon... since they have built a second massive location locally, but that's still a form of retail and company I could not be paid enough to go back to after a short stint with them many years ago.

What auto manufacturing we had is gone after the recession and other promises of what would go in there fell through for years. Amazon's newest location took over that property...

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by MsMarvelDuckie

FDR would have disagreed with that sentiment. It was supposed to be the minimum LIVABLE wage for supporting a family on, in a decent home.

That language was needed as a "livable" wage before decades of class-evolution, price hikes and education led to a more advanced society. That wasn't the permanent thesis in a document like the constitution.

FDR did great things, but those things were an anachronistic measure. Additionally, you don't need to own a home to have a "livelihood". This is where people disregard the truths of life amidstt the use of language.

So even if we used the "livable" wage argument and it was a point of temporal continuity, then that would include "shelter" and not "home ownership". Again, whether this observation "offends" someone or otherwise, most arguments like this are from the thought of least resistance. E.g., the thought gets stuck in the head that "minimum wage means LIVABLE wage" but before you know it those same people are making arguments about "home ownership" and it keeps going.....

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

But we do know how to do something about it, same as we did decades ago. Get a better job. Learn a trade. Minimum wage isn't supposed to get you the white picket fence and was never supposed to, and never should.

Additionally, FDR would not have disagreed with that sentiment. Saying that he would have supposes also that FDR's intent was to have people be stuck forever in their crap minimum wage jobs, which was not his intent. He still expected development through-and-out-of those jobs. And that is another critical thinking error on part of the people that go to the "FDR's Intent" point. It's 90% arguments of shallow thinking with tunnel vision. But again, the people who do it don't like to hear it; because it puts it on their ability to think critically and you know... the truth makes enemies in circles of playtime academia like this. So.

[Andrew NDB]

When I was 16, 17 and working at McDonald's, everybody there with me including myself was a slacker (but hey, we can be forgiven -- we were kids) and we all knew it. 4 of us banded together and got a 2 bedroom apartment and that was like a huge thing. Eventually we all got much better jobs and went into our own soon enough. Not 1 of us ever thought much more was owed to us beyond maybe a couple of quarters more an hour, depending.

Nowadays? These freaks get a job at McDonald's and just go, "Wtf!!! I have a job and I can't remotely afford a house or an apartment all on my own immediately or without a better job! F*** capitalism/we need a revolution!" (or worse, the ballad of the 20 year old woman with no husband and 5 kids complaining about how her fry cook job isn't cutting it) and the other losers all chime in with "Yeah!!!! Preach!" probably on their way to the peaceful protest.

[CyberCubed]

Apartments and houses are way more expensive than they were 20-10 years ago. Nowadays a 1 bedroom apartment in NY can go up to $2,500 a month, when my parents were renting an apartment in the 80's/90's they paid $800 a month.

It's actually why most young people live with their parents up through 25+ nowadays instead of moving out at 18, it's very hard to do now unless you live with roommates.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

Apartments and houses are way more expensive than they were 20-10 years ago. Nowadays a 1 bedroom apartment in NY can go up to $2,500 a month, when my parents were renting an apartment in the 80's/90's they paid $800 a month.

It's actually why most young people live with their parents up through 25+ nowadays instead of moving out at 18, it's very hard to do now unless you live with roommates.

A bit. When I was 18 in 1999 a middling one bedroom was like $500 out here. Now it's like $1300. But that same job that paid $5.25 is now paying $12-13 an hour.

It's not quite 1:1 but it's also not as dire as people make it out to be. If anything, I think the greater push to more quickly accel in the workforce out of need is perhaps a positive thing. Or can be.

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

When I was 16, 17 and working at McDonald's, everybody there with me including myself was a slacker (but hey, we can be forgiven -- we were kids) and we all knew it. 4 of us banded together and got a 2 bedroom apartment and that was like a huge thing. Eventually we all got much better jobs and went into our own soon enough. Not 1 of us ever thought much more was owed to us beyond maybe a couple of quarters more an hour, depending.

Nowadays? These freaks get a job at McDonald's and just go, "Wtf!!! I have a job and I can't remotely afford a house or an apartment all on my own immediately or without a better job! F*** capitalism/we need a revolution!" (or worse, the ballad of the 20 year old woman with no husband and 5 kids complaining about how her fry cook job isn't cutting it) and the other losers all chime in with "Yeah!!!! Preach!" probably on their way to the peaceful protest.

That's right. My first job was friggin' Dominos Pizza, man. They paid me, I think it was $4.05 an hour to start and that was not to drive with tips - that was to work inside and take orders and make the pizza!

I was a kid and I looked at the job as something to do - it wasn't even remotely in my mind to complain about the wage because I couldn't go off and live life on my own merits working at Domino's Pizza, you know?

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

Apartments and houses are way more expensive than they were 20-10 years ago. Nowadays a 1 bedroom apartment in NY can go up to $2,500 a month, when my parents were renting an apartment in the 80's/90's they paid $800 a month.

It's actually why most young people live with their parents up through 25+ nowadays instead of moving out at 18, it's very hard to do now unless you live with roommates.

And see, what you are saying here is maybe a formative, baseline argument to be made for maintaining and legally mandating an increasing minimum wage. Absolutely. And to some extent that is about, bare minimum, being a member of the workforce and being able to somehow shelter yourself.

But there should be no argument to be had about leftie complaints that someone makes minimum wage and -EEGADS! We can't BUY A HOUSE on this! It ISN'T FAIR!-

Again, I'll get the brunt of the hate from the thread-bimbos though. I'm saying what every other focused person here is saying, but I'm trying to wake people up by adding on with the psychological component as to why people make uniformed arguments or pencil whip semi-comprehended sources. But you know.... pointing out the stupidity that is ruining the country makes it personal, so... -raises hand- BAD GUY RIGHT HERE!

[Original TMNT Cartoon Fan]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

4 of us banded together and got a 2 bedroom apartment and that was like a huge thing.

Didn't you need some parental approvement to be allowed to move out before 18?

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Original TMNT Cartoon Fan

Didn't you need some parental approvement to be allowed to move out before 18?

That didn't happen before 18. But... sort of it did. I flopped there most of the time until a little after 18. Paid them my fair share of rent. Then I moved out fully with my girlfriend. She worked at Wendy's and I was doing data entry by that point... well past the McDonald's wages of the time.

[CyberCubed]

Most people go to college from 18-22 years old, so even then you're living in a dorm, or commuting from home or an apartment. Obviously at 18 most people do not have a lot of money, or they blow all their money on things they don't need, so it takes awhile to get a move on.

I had no real money at that age and couldn't move out even if I wanted. I wasn't able to get a full-time job till I was 23 since I was either too busy with school or just didn't have enough time. There's no shame living with your parents until your mid-20's these days. Times have changed.

[AquaParade]

It's ridiculous how many people seem to think they deserve more for entry-level jobs, mostly because unemployment benefits were off the chain during the pandemic.
People got a bit too comfortable with the raises they received as a prize for sitting on their butt or day drinking at the park.

I went in to Taco bell the other day and the dude was literally standing at the register, staring into space, the entire five minutes, while the other was making my food in the back.
Meanwhile, I'm peeling my shoes off the sticky ground and staring at the most dusty counter for napkins & condiments that I've ever seen.

Dude, do something. Get off your ass and clean. I mean, I just hope these people clamoring for a pay increase realise they have to step it up at these types of jobs where you can get away with hardly doing a thing. I think there is room for a chicken or egg debate, but at the same time, you don't take the job and just do it poorly until you get a pay increase.

At the same time, a lot of these corporations could pay more, and therefore demand better work ethic, which would benefit both the worker and customer, and I think in some instances they should. There is something cathartic about seeing McDonalds actually have to put their back into hiring someone.

It's a complicated issue. Minimum wage should go up. But it depends on where you live among plenty of other variables. You can't just

A. Make it a flat rate across the nation

B. Expect to earn enough to fully support yourself, living alone, off an entry-level job. Not to mention all the variables that come along when trying to describe what a "livable wage" is. How much does one get to spend on food? Entertainment? Area of living? No one really knows what makes up a "livable wage".

And let's not forget a few other things that will happen if you set a flat minimum wage to the likes of what a vocal portion are calling for:

1. How many small business are going to survive when they are forced to pay $16 an hour to every single person they hire?

2. How many corporations are going to hire entry-level workers at $16, who hardly know how to work a job, before going all in on automation and kiosks?

Some people want to ignore all that.

I do think minimum wage needs to go up. There is certainly an argument there. Unfortunately, the ones who seem to be hoisting the flag, don't all seem to understand nuance, or the fact that the world isn't designed to take care of them for doing menial jobs.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Originally Posted by IMJ

That language was needed as a "livable" wage before decades of class-evolution, price hikes and education led to a more advanced society. That wasn't the permanent thesis in a document like the constitution.

FDR did great things, but those things were an anachronistic measure. Additionally, you don't need to own a home to have a "livelihood". This is where people disregard the truths of life amidstt the use of language.

So even if we used the "livable" wage argument and it was a point of temporal continuity, then that would include "shelter" and not "home ownership". Again, whether this observation "offends" someone or otherwise, most arguments like this are from the thought of least resistance. E.g., the thought gets stuck in the head that "minimum wage means LIVABLE wage" but before you know it those same people are making arguments about "home ownership" and it keeps going.....



Additionally, FDR would not have disagreed with that sentiment. Saying that he would have supposes also that FDR's intent was to have people be stuck forever in their crap minimum wage jobs, which was not his intent. He still expected development through-and-out-of those jobs. And that is another critical thinking error on part of the people that go to the "FDR's Intent" point. It's 90% arguments of shallow thinking with tunnel vision. But again, the people who do it don't like to hear it; because it puts it on their ability to think critically and you know... the truth makes enemies in circles of playtime academia like this. So.

My point was that a livable wage NOW is nothing like what it was then, but being ABLE to live on a low wage job is now the exception rather than the rule. And while I would LOVE to own a house, even affording a decent apartment (that isn't a literal roach motel tenement) on a basic minimum wage is damn near impossible now. What makes it worse is 5he current sentiment that "minimum wage jobs are for teenagers", even though they demonstrably are NOT. Went round and round with an idiot about this a while back, who refused to understand that MOST full time jobs in retail and food are held by ADULTS ages 25-45, with about 65% being women in the 30-40 age range. During hours when kids would be in school, or at home in bed. Yet he still insisted those jobs are "for kids".

Up to about three decades ago, a family COULD reasonably live on one or two minimum wage jobs (depending if you were single or had a spouse/SO) and still do ok. But not so much anymore in most places.